witness in sex abuse trial commits suicide after grilling by female QC

[BobbiFleckmann]

the violin teacher who was the unwilling prosecution witness against the two Chethams Music School teachers killed herself in the middle of the trial. She told her friend she felt like she'd been raped again after the female defence QC accused her of lying in her evidence. Very, very sad.
My cynical view is that defendants in sex cases go for female barristers because they think it'll give them a veneer of innocence /respectability. I know the woman was "just doing her job" but I'd sure like to hear her views on methods of cross examination in sex abuse trials.

Narkec would you ecpect somthing a defndentsaid during councilling to remain confidential?

It has to work both ways supposeing somthing wich ment the accuser might have not been 100% sure about the id of there attacker or may be cleared a co defendant of being envolved you think that should be kept quit wow

emmeline just said in one post what I have been trying to say.

narked I explained thread about that.

Standard of proof is not 100% in any event, but 'beyond reasonable doubt'

Spero its not about assessing the demeanour of the victim - you can't be 100% certain of anything from demeanour - this is why conviction rates are low.

I'm hazy but aren't something like 83% of convictions guilty pleas and in the main involve DNA evidence.

I understand what you are saying but rape is almost an unpunishable crime in this country and that is not right either.

www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/07/the-saddest-graph-youll-see-today/

A rape victim is a crime scene with valuable forensic evidence in the Criminal Justice System - no showering, hair/clothes washing or counselling can happen because evidence would be contaminated. In court, she is a witness - the crime is against the Crown, not against her. A defence lawyer must show witnesses are unreliable. Meanwhile, the defendant is innocent until proven guilty.

This situation isn't two equal sides, one word against the other. The system itself puts women at a disadvantage from the outset.

The graph is equally applicable to GB, according to Home Office.

Spero to ture as humans we worked out the likey hood of weather somones telling the truth

Sometimes thast based of feeling,rasicm,sexism just plain old gut somtimes jurys just dont like the cut of somones jib were people and do out best.

was 100% on the trial I attended according to the defence barrister - over and over and over and over again - if I didn't know for a fact how many lies he spouted in that trial on behalf of his client - I'd have believed his innocence.

Of course it is about assessing witness giving evidence - that is why we have adversarial system. People are judged on what they say in witness box and how they say it.

It is not a perfect system. But when I ask for alternatives, I don't get any.

Yes rape convictions are low. This is due to nature of the offence - often committed in private, only two people at scene, waters may be muddied by prior relationship etc, etc.

Lets put our energies more into rape prevention - not making it women's responsibility to avoid rape but pointing out to men they should not rape.

I am sorry it i can't think of a better system than our adversarial one - its least worst option. If accused of a really serious offence, you should have a right to test the case against you.

Counselling should always be confidential. Full stop. It doesn't work otherwise.

dom surely as an experience professional we would be able to rely on a therapist/counsellor to decide if the're is anything relevant.

Why should every suicidal rape victim be denied the help they need? Or have to gave their rapist being able to get off on their distress.

Nothing should should be private when either life or liberty are at stake sorry

Counselling is not confidential if someone reveals they are going to harm another person or a child. Counsellor must inform someone if that happens.

Anything said in counselling that reveals a child protection issue has to be disclosed. As it should be.

Most of the comments here are from perspective that anyone accused of rape is guilty and any witness is thus a victim. And that's the danger.

You really haven't got a clue.

constantnamechanger i agree but you should be prepared as a victim or defandent to have it brought into court if what you are saying is relvant in freeig somone or putting somone in jail

Am i correct even QC cannot conceal evidence when life or liberty are at stake

I don't think it's the least worst option because it isn't working - men know they can rape women, other men and children with impunity - because the chances of a conviction are less than 1% based on conservative estimates of under reporting.

The current system leaves countless victims - reported and not reported withlife sentences.

And while budgets services and resources are slashed it will get worse

Conviction rates in court may well go up - because less and less will get to court at all as the burden to only prosecute water tight cases to save resources gets higher.

dom you really don't know what you are talking about - and it becomes clearer with every post.

A what is the alternative? Assumption that anyone a caused of rape is guilty? Send them straight to prison? I don't want to live in a country where that is ok.

Spero yes I agree - but that's the call of the therapist/counsellor - its part of their code of practise.

I've already said that in my opinion the defence should be stopped from pulling defences outility of thin air.

It is not the 'call' of the therapist - it is their professional duty. They cannot reman silent if child protection issues are raised.

No. The comments are based on the fact that it's incredibly difficult to get a rape case to trial. I too couldn't be on a jury in a rape case because you know from the start that the very fact that the case has reached court means that you can be 99% sure the person is guilty.

Isn't part of the problem that there is no preparation of witnesses, as you do have in the likes of America? My understanding is that preparing a witness is tantamount to tainting evidence, so the victim/witness won't be as prepared as they probably should (for their sake, not necessarily for the sake of the justice system). I'm not in anyway knowledgeable or qualified in this area so happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.

Spero I said that in the second half of my sentence.